jewish scripture and the literacy of jesus

8/2/2019 Jewish Scripture and the Literacy of Jesus

1/14

1See P. F. Craffert and P. J. J. Botha, Why Jesus Could Walk on the Sea but

He Could Not Read and Write, Neot 39 (2005): 5-35. Botha argues for the

illiteracy of Jesus in the fourth part of this paper, under the heading Was Jesus

Literate? (pp. 21-32). It is to this part of the paper that reference will be made.2Paul Foster, Educating Jesus: The Search for a Plausible Context,JSHJ4

(2006): 7-33. Fosters study is not in response to Botha.3It is either omitted or marked off with asterisks or obeli in the earliest mss

(omitted in P66,75! Avid B CvidL N T W X Y "#$ 33 and many others; marked

with asterisks or obeli in E S %& 1077 1424 1443 1445). In other mss it appears

elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel (after 7:36, 225; after 7:44, several Georgian mss;

after 21:25, 565 1076 1570 1582 several Armenian mss), and in some mss it

appears in Luke (after 21:38, 13; after 24:53, 1333). See the discussion in Bruce M.

Metzger,A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament(London and New

Jewish Scripture and the Literacy of Jesus

Craig A. Evans

In a recent publication Pieter Botha restates an argument that has been heard

before: that Jesus in all probability could not read.1 A few months later an

essay by Paul Foster appeared, in which the opposite conclusion was

reached.2 Both scholars agree that it is not really possible to settle the issue

with any degree of certainty. As in much of scholarship concerned with

antiquity, conclusions are largely decisions based on probability. So it is

with regard to the question of Jesus literacy. In my opinion, Fosters

conclusion is the more compelling of the two. His assessment of the

contextual issues is more nuanced and rightly recognizes that what may

obtain in the case of the Mediterranean of Late Antiquity probably does notobtain for Torah-observant Jewry. However, there are some important

factors that should be taken into further consideration.

Three passages in the Gospels suggest Jesus was able to read. The first

passage is Luke 4:16-30, which describes Jesus reading from the scroll of

Isaiah and then preaching a homily. Most scholars hesitate to draw firm

conclusions from this passage because of its relationship to the parallel

passage in Mark 6:1-6, which says nothing about reading Scripture. The

second passage is John 8:6, which says Jesus stooped down and wrote in the

dust with his finger. The problem here is that in all probability this passage

(viz. John 7:53-8:11) is inauthentic.3 Even if the passage is accepted as


2/14

42 From Biblical Criticism to Biblical Faith

York: United Bible Societies, 1971) 219-22. The pericope is clearly an intrusion in

its present context. Moreover, it contains several non-Johannine words and phrases.

The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of this pericope of the adulteress,

Metzger rightly remarks, is overwhelming (219). See also the comments in L. M.

McDonald and S. E. Porter,Early Christianity and Its Sacred Literature (Peabody

MA: Hendrickson, 2000) 578, 587, 625.4The evidence is very helpfully reviewed in Foster, Educating Jesus, 19-21.5See again the helpful review of the options and the scholarly opinion in Foster,

Educating Jesus, 17-19.6C. K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles, 2 vols., ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,

19941998) 2:233-34.7According to LSJ an ivdiw,thj is a common or private person, one who lacks

professional training and education.

preserving a genuine reminiscence of something Jesus did, it tells us

nothing certain about Jesus literacy. He may have been doing nothing more

than doodling.4

The third passage, John 7:15, directly speaks to the question of Jesusliteracy, at least in the narrative world of the fourth evangelist. Some in

Jerusalem wonder: How is it that this man has learning, when he has never

studied? Literally, they have asked how he knows letters (gra,mmataoi=den), not having studied or not having learned (mh. memaqhkw,j). Butthe reference here is to a lack of formal, scribal training, not to having had

no education whatsoever. Jesus has not sat at the feet of a trained, recog-

nized rabbi or sage.5 We encounter the same language in Acts, which

describes the reaction of the religious authorities to the disciples of Jesus:

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that

they were uneducated [avgra,mmatoi], common men [ivdiw/tai], they wondered;and they recognized that they had been with Jesus (Acts 4:13). The words

avgra,mmatoi and ivdiw/tai should not be rendered unlearned and ignorant,as in the King James Version (and ASV). To beavgra,mmatoj is to lack scribaltraining (so LSJ), and is in fact the opposite of the grammateu,j, theprofessional scribe.6 To beavgra,mmatoj does not necessarily mean to beunable to read.

To be an ivdiw,thj is to be one outside of the guild, or outside of thegroup, as in 1 Cor 14:16, 23, and 24, where Paul refers to the outsider (so

RSV) or ungifted (so NASB) as an ivdiw,thj. In contrast to professionaltrained scribes and priests the ivdiw,thj is a layman.7 In 2 Cor 11:6 Paul saysof himself, Even if I am unskilled [ivdiw,thj] in speaking . . . (RSV). Paul,of course, could and did preach, and did so effectively. Yet he conceded


3/14

Jewish Scripture and the Literacy of Jesus 43

8Cf. LXX Prov 6:8: the labors of which both kings and subjects [ivdiw/tai] applythemselves. According to Josephus, Moses says to God: I am at a loss to know

how I, a mere commoner [ivdiw,thj] blest with no strength, could either find wordsto persuade my people . . . or constrain Pharaoh (Ant. 2.12.2 271). This nuance

is also noted in LSJ.9Even if one takes the position that the narrative of John 7 does not derive from

the Sitz im Leben of Jesus, but reflects the laterSitzof the Johannine community,

it may well reflect an accurate memory of Jesus and his earliest followers, viz., that

though lacking formal training, they could discuss the Scriptures. For review of

more legendary materials, such as Marys relationship to Elizabeth and Zechariah

(Luke 1:5-36), which could suggest exposure to more educated circles, or Jesus as

a boy in the temple dialoguing with the teachers (Luke 2:40-52), or Jesus as a

schoolboy in theInfancy Gospel of Thomas, see Foster, Educating Jesus, 15-17,

22-25. None of this tradition has probative value.

that he lacked formal training in rhetoric and oratory. Hence he regarded

himself as unskilled or outside the guild. ivdiw,thj may also refer to acommoner, in contrast to royalty.8 The ivdiw,thj is the unskilled (with

reference to any profession or trade) or commoner (in contrast to a ruler)and seems to be the equivalent of the Hebrew hediyot, as seen in m. Moed

Qatan 1:8 (He that is not skilled [hahediyot] may sew after his usual

fashion, but the craftsman may make only irregular stitches) and m. Sanh.

10:2 (Three kings and four commoners [hediyototh] have no share in the

world to come . . . ).

The comments in John 7:15 and Acts 4:13 should not be taken to imply

that Jesus and his disciples were illiterate. In fact, the opposite is probably

the intended sense, as most commentators rightly interpret. That is, despite

not having had formal training, Jesus and his disciples evince remarkable

skill in the knowledge of Scripture and ability to interpret it and defend

their views. These texts, more than Luke 4:16-30 and John 8:6, lend some

support to the probability that Jesus was literate.9

One might also mention the titulus placed on or near Jesus cross (cf.

Mark 15:26; Matt 27:37; Luke 23:37). Its placement surely implies that

some people observing Jesus could read, among them perhaps his own dis-

ciples (for whom the titulus serves as a warning, in keeping with Roman

policy of public execution as a deterrence). According to the fourth Gospel:

Many of the Jews read [polloi. avne,gnwsan tw/n VIoudai,wn] this title, for theplace where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in

Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek (John 19:20). It is interesting to note that


4/14


10As rightly remarked by J. P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the

Historical Jesus, vol. 1: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, ABRL (New

York: Doubleday, 1991) 277: individual texts from the Gospels prove very little

about the literacy of Jesus.11Consistent with this expectation, the author of the Testament of Levi has the

great patriarch admonish his sons: Teach your children letters [gra,mmata] also, so

that they might have understanding throughout all their lives as they ceaselessly

read [avnaginw,skontej avdialei,ptwj] the Law of God (T. Levi 13:2).12Meier,A Marginal Jew, 275.

the evangelist could assume that many Judeans were able to read the

titulus.

Although there is no unambiguous evidence for the literacy of Jesus,10

there is considerable contextual and circumstantial evidence that suggeststhat in all probability he was literate. At the outset, we should keep in mind

the nature of Jewish faith itself. It is centered on Scripture, which narrates

Israels sacred story, a story that the Jewish people are admonished to know

and to teach their children. According to the Shema, which all Torah-

observant Jews were expected to recite daily, parents were to teach their

children Torah (cf. Deut 4:9; 6:7; 11:19; 31:12-13; 2 Chr 17:7-9; Eccl 12:9),

even to adorn their doorposts with the Shema (Deut 6:9 you shall write

[ketavka/gra,yete] them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates;cf. 11:20).11 One should suppose that scriptural commandments such as

these, which stand at the heart of Jewish faith (cf. Mark 12:28-33; James

2:19), would have encouraged literacy among the Jewish people.12

According to Philo and Josephus, approximate contemporaries of Jesus,Jewish parents taught their children Torah and how to read it. Philo claims:

All men guard their own customs, but this is especially true of the Jewish

nation. Holding that the laws are oracles vouchsafed by God and having

been trained in this doctrine from their earliest years [tou/to evk prw,thjhliki,aj to. ma,qhma paideuqe,ntej], they carry the likenesses of the command-ments enshrined in their souls (De Legatione 31 210). It is improbable

that the training of which he speaks here did not include basic literacy.

Josephus, however, is more explicit: Above all we pride ourselves on the

education of our children [paidotrofi,an], and regard as the most essentialtask in life the observance of our laws and of the pious practices, based

thereupon, which we have inherited (Ag. Ap. 1.12 60). He says later:

(The Law) orders that (children) shall be taught to read [gra,mmatapaideu,ein], and shall learn both the laws and the deeds of their forefathers


5/14


13It is possible of course that Augustines reference is to Josephus and not to

Seneca.

. . . (Ag. Ap. 2.25 204). The claim that the Law orders children to be

taught to read derives from Deut 6:9 and 11:20 (cited above). Josephus goes

so far as to say that most men, so far from living in accordance with their

own laws, hardly know what they are. . . . But, should anyone of our nationbe questioned about the laws, he would repeat them all more readily than

his own name. The result, then, of our thorough grounding in the laws from

the first dawn of intelligence is that we have them, as it were, engraved on

our souls (Ag. Ap. 2.18 176, 178). This may not be too wide of the truth,

for Augustine claims that Seneca made a similar remark: The Jews,

however, are aware of the origin and meaning of their rites. The greater part

of (other) people go through a ritual not knowing why they do so (De

Civitate Dei 6.11).13

It may be admitted that Philo and Josephus are painting idealistic

pictures and perhaps have in mind affluent families that can afford the

luxury of formal education for their children. But it would be a mistake to

assume that the pursuit of education, including above all literacy, waslimited to the upper class or to professionals. In the story of the seven

martyred sons (cf. 2 Maccabees 7) we have no reason to imagine an upper

class family. In the version presented in 4 Maccabees the mother reminds

her sons of their fathers teaching:

He, while he was still with you, taught [evdi,dasken] you the Law and the

Prophets. He read [avnegi,nwske,n] to you of Abel, slain by Cain, of Isaac,offered as a burnt offering, and of Joseph, in prison. He spoke to you of the

zeal of Phineas, taught [evdi,dasken] you about Hananiah . . . He reminded youof the scripture of Isaiah which says . . . [Isa 43:2] . . . He sang to you the

psalm of David which says . . . [Ps 34:19] . . . He recited the proverb of

Solomon which says . . . [Prov 3:18] . . . He affirmed the word of Ezekiel

[Ezek 37:3] . . . Nor did he forget the song that Moses taught which says . . .

[Deut 32:39]. (4 Macc 18:10-19)

The summary here of the fathers instruction of his sons clearly presupposes

literacy. The portrait is idealized to be sure, but for it to have any persuasive

value in Jewish society, it would have to be realistic.

Popular piety expressed in the earliest rabbinic tradition coheres with

the testimonies of Philo and Josephus. The sages enjoin, provide yourself

a teacher (Abot1:16; cf. 1:6). In the saying attributed to Judah ben Tema,

literacy is assumed to be the norm: At five years old [one is fit] for the


6/14


14See also Abot R. Nat. 6.2: Rabbi Aqiba took hold of one end of the tablet

and his son the other end of the tablet. The teacher wrote down aleph beth for him

and he learned it; aleph taw, and he learned it; the book of Leviticus, and he learned

it. He went on studying until he learned the whole Torah. Gen. Rab. 63.10 (on Gen

25:27): Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon said: A man is responsible for his son

until age thirteen. Whatever the probative value of this tradition, the training

envisioned here is probably for would-be sages and rabbis, not necessarily for the

average person.15According to b. B. Bat. 21a, on the organization of public schools: At length

Joshua ben Gamala came and ordained that teachers of young children should be

appointed in each district and each town and that children begin their schooling at

the age of six or seven. There are many texts that say similar things (e.g., b. Sanh.

17b; y. Meg. 3.1 [73d]; y. Ketub. 13.1 [35c] = b. Git.t.. 58a; y. H. ag. 1.7; b. Sab.

119b;y. Ketub. 8.11 [32c]). Other traditions presuppose the education of children

in literacy (e.g., b. H. ag. 15a-b; b. H. ull. 95b; b. Git.t.. 56a; Song Rab. 2:5 3). Some

have argued that the discovery of abecedaries point to the existence of schools; e.g.,

A. R. Millard, BGDMagic Spell or Educational Exercise? EretzIsrael18

(1985) 39-42. Abecedaries point to literacy, not to schools. For a discussion of this

issue, though in reference to earlier periods in Israels history, see M. Haran, On

Scripture, at ten for the Mishnah, at thirteen for [keeping] the command-

ments (i.e., bar mitsvah) . . . (Abot5:21; cf. b. Ketub. 50a: Do not accept

a pupil under the age of six; but accept one from the age of six and stuff him

[with knowledge] like an ox). Elsewhere in the Mishnah we read thatchildren . . . should be educated . . . so that they will be familiar with the

commandments (m. Yoma 8:4). We find a similar injunction in the

Tannaitic midrash on Deuteronomy: Once an infant begins to talk, his

father should converse with him in the holy tongue and should teach him

Torah, for if he fails to do so it is the same as if he had buried him (Sipre

Deut. 56 [on Deut 11:19]; cf. t. Qidd. 1.11: What is the fathers duty

towards his son? . . . to teach him Torah).14 If a son lacks the intelligence

to ask his father the proper questions concerning the meaning of Passover,

his father is to instruct him (m. Pesah. 10:4). There is halakhic discussion

that clearly presupposes that children can read Scripture (cf. m. Meg. 4:5-6;

t. Sab. 11.17: If a minor holds the pen . . . , Soperim 5.9: regulations

concerning producing extracts of Scripture for children). One of the firstthings a new proselyte is to learn is the Hebrew alphabet, forwards and

backwards (b. Sab. 31a, in reference to Hillel). The rabbinic tradition

contains numerous references to schools, to the effect that every synagogue

and village had at least one school.15 The idealistic and tendentious nature


7/14


the Diffusion of Schools and Literacy, in J. A. Emerton, ed., Congress Volume:

Jerusalem 1986, VTSup 40 (Leiden: Brill, 1988) 81-95. J. T. Townsend (Ancient

Education in the Time of the Early Roman Empire, in S. Benko and J. J.

ORourke, eds., The Catacombs and the Colosseum [Valley Forge PA: Judson

Press, 1971] 139-63) cautiously concludes that Jewish schools in any number did

not emerge until after the Bar Kokhba war. On the whole, however, there is

significant evidence for literacy in ancient Israel and in Israel of late antiquity; cf.

A. R. Millard, An Assessment of the Evidence for Writing in Ancient Israel, in

A. Biran, ed.,Biblical Archaeology Today (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society,

1985) 301-12.16As seen, e.g., in S. Safrai, Education and the Study of Torah, in S. Safrai

and M. Stern, eds., The Jewish People in the First Century, 2 vols., CRINT 1.1-2

(Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974, 1976) 2:945-70; E. SchrerThe

History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 3 vols., rev. by G. Vermes,

F. Millar, and M. Black (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 19731987) 2:415-20; J. T.

Townsend, Education (Greco-Roman), inABD 2:312-17, esp. 315-17.17Safrai, Education and the Study of Torah, 952. Safrai remarks further (953-

55), depending on y. Meg. 3.1 (73d); cf. y. Ketub. 13.1 (35c), that schools were

connected with synagogues and that learning Torah was obligatory for boys but not

for girls. But do these traditions really tell us anything about Jewish literacy in the

first century?18Uncritical acceptance of the rabbinic tradition of schools in every village is

rightly criticized in Meier,A Marginal Jew, 271, and Botha, Was Jesus Literate?

24-25.

of this material is often not adequately appreciated.16 Primarily on the basis

of the rabbinic tradition, Shemuel Safrai concludes that the ability to write

was fairly widespread . . . [but] less widespread than that of reading which

everyone possessed.17

Notwithstanding his uncritical use of rabbinicalsources,18 Safrais conclusion that literacy was widespread among Jews may

be more correct than not.

Recognizing the limited value of the late, idealized rabbinic literature

and the apologetically orientated claims of Philo and Josephus, three

general factors favor the probability of the literacy of Jesus: (1) the

injunctions of Scripture to teach and learn Torah, (2) the value placed on

Torah, of knowing and obeying its laws, and (3) the advantage of being the

firstborn son. In view of these factors, it is probable that Jesus received at

least some education in literacy. The probability increases when we take

into account features of his later ministry. In these features we have, I

believe, far more compelling evidence for the literacy of Jesus.


8/14


19Mark 9:5; 1:21; 14:45; etc.20Mark 10:51; John 20:16.21Luke 5:5; 8:24, 45; 9:33, 49; 17:13.22Matt 8:19; 9:11; 12:38; Mark 4:38; 5:35; 9:17; 10:17, 20; 12:14, 19, 32; Luke

19:39; John 1:38; 3:2.23Mark 2:15, 16, 18, 23; 3:7, 9; 4:34; 5:31; and Q: Luke 6:20; 10:23; 12:22;

14:26, 27.24Abot1:1, 11; 2:8; 5:12; 6:6.25This, in turn, is education in the law [h tou/ no,mou paidei,a], by which we

learn [manqa,nomen] divine matters reverently and human affairs to our advantage(4 Macc 1:17 RSV).

26R. Riesner,Jesus als Lehrer, WUNT 2/7 (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981);

B. D. Chilton and C. A. Evans, Jesus and Israels Scriptures, in B. D. Chilton and

C. A. Evans, eds., Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current

Research, NTTS 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 281-335, here 285-98.27Matt 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:21; 6:2; Luke 4:15; 6:6; 13:10; John 6:59. Bothas

interesting suggestion concerning this point will be discussed shortly.

Jesus is frequently called Rabbi19 or Rabbo(u)ni,20 or its Greek

equivalents master (evpista,ta)21 or teacher (dida,skaloj).22 Jesus refersto himself in this manner, and is called such by supporters, opponents, and

nonpartisans. Although prior to 70 CE the designation Rabbi is informal,even vague, and lacks the later connotations of formal training and ordi-

nation, which obtain sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem and the

Temple, it is very probable that at least a limited literacy was assumed.

In keeping with his designation as Rabbi, Jesus and others called his

closest followers disciples, whose Greek form (maqhtai,),23 like theHebrew (talmidim),24 derives from the verbal cognate to learn (manqa,nein/lamad).25 This terminology, whose appearance in the Gospels betrays no

hint that it was controversial or in any sense a matter of debate, or the

product of early Christian tendentiousness, creates a strong presumption in

favor of Jesus literacy. In the Jewish setting, an illiterate Rabbi, who

surrounds himself with disciples, debates Scripture and halakah with other

Rabbis and scribes, is hardly credible. Moreover, the numerous parallelsbetween Jesus teaching and the rabbinic tradition, as well as the many

points of agreement between Jesus interpretation of Scripture and the

rabbinic tradition,26 only add to this conviction. Jesus teaching in the

synagogues27 is not easily explained if Jesus were unable to read and had

not undertaken study of Scripture that involved at least some training in

literacy.


9/14


28Matt 5:1; 26:55; Mark 12:41; Luke 4:20; 5:3; cf. Matt 23:2, where Jesus

refers to the scribes and Pharisees who sit on the seat of Moses (evpi. th/j Mwu?se,wj

kaqe,draj).29J. A. T. Robinson (Did Jesus have a Distinctive Use of Scripture? in Twelve

More New Testament Studies [London: SCM Press, 1984] 35-43) has called this

distinctive feature Jesus challenging use of Scripture. Robinson rightly regards

this feature as deriving from Jesus himself and not the early Christian community.

In the style of the sages and rabbis of his day, Jesus sat down when

he taught (cf. the discussion of when to sit or stand; b. Meg. 21a).28

Moreover, Jesus contemporaries compared him with scribes, that is, with

literate people: And they were astonished at his teaching, for he taughtthem as one who had authority, and not as the scribes (Mark 1:22).

Although such comparison in itself does not prove that Jesus was literate,

it supports the Gospels portrait that Jesus was a Rabbi or teacher, which in

turn should require a presumption in favor of literacy. It is difficult to

imagine Jesus enjoying a favorable comparison with rival scribes,

ifunlike themhe was illiterate.

On occasion Jesus himself refers to reading Scripture. He asks Pharisees

who criticized his disciples for plucking grain on the Sabbath: Have you

never read [avne,gnwte] what David did, when he was in need and washungry . . . ? (Mark 2:25; cf. Matt 12:3). To this pericope Matthew adds:

Or have you not read in the law [avne,gnwte evn tw|/ no,mw|] how on the

Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are guiltless?(Matt 12:5; cf. 19:4, where Matthew again enriches the Markan source in

a similar manner; the same is probably the case in Matt 21:16). In another

polemical context, Jesus asks the ruling priests and elders: Have you not

read this scripture [ouvde. th.n grafh.n tau,thn avne,gnwte]: The very stonewhich the builders rejected has become the head of the corner . . .? (Mark

12:10). Later he asks the Sadducees, who had raised a question about

resurrection: And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the

book of Moses [ouvk avne,gnwte evn th|/ bi,blw| Mwu?se,wj], in the passage aboutthe bush, how God said to him, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of

Isaac, and the God of Jacob? (Mark 12:26). In a discussion with a legal

expert (nomiko,j tij), who has asked what one must do to inherit eternal life,Jesus asks in turn: What is written in the Law? How do you read? [evn tw|/no,mw| ti, ge,graptai* pw/j avnaginw,skeij*] (Luke 10:26).29 We find in therabbinic literature statements like Similarly you read (e.g., b. Sab. 97a;

Ketub. 111a, 111b) or How would you read this verse? (e.g.,Ketub. 81b;


10/14


30So rightly J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Christianity in the Making 1

(Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2003) 314.31This important point is made by Foster, Educating Jesus, 32.32See the helpful tabulation in R. T. France,Jesus and the Old Testament: His

Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission (London:

Tyndale, 1971) 259-63.33Hosea, Joel, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Zephaniah, Zechariah, and Malachi.

Omitted are Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Haggai.34Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Daniel, and Chronicles. Omitted are Song of Solomon,

Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah.35C. A. Evans, The Scriptures of Jesus and His Earliest Followers, in L. M.

McDonald and J. A. Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate (Peabody MA: Hendrickson,

2002) 185-95.

Qid. 22a, 40a, 81b). But Jesus rhetorical and pointed have you not read?

seems to be distinctive of his style and surely would have little argumenta-

tive force if he himself could not read.30 And finally, even if we discount

Luke 4:16-30 as the evangelists retelling of Mark 6:1-6, it may neverthe-less accurately recall Jesus habit of reading and expounding Scripture in

the synagogues of Galilee: And he came to Nazareth, where he had been

brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the

Sabbath day. And he stood up to read [avne,sth avnagnw/nai] . . . (Luke 4:16,emphasis added). I shall return to this passage below.

It should be noted too that in the Gospel stories reviewed above Jesus

literacy is never an issue. There is no evidence of apologetic tendencies, in

which Jesus literary skills are exaggerated. Jesus ability to read appears

to be a given, but not an issue.31

Indications of Jesus literacy may also be seen in his familiarity with

and usage of Scripture. According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus quotes or

alludes to 23 of the 36 books of the Hebrew Bible32 (counting the books ofSamuel, Kings, and Chronicles as three books, not six). Jesus alludes to or

quotes all five books of Moses, the three Major Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah,

and Ezekiel), eight of the twelve Minor Prophets,33 and five of the writ-

ings.34 In other words, Jesus quotes or alludes to allof the books of the

Law, mostof the Prophets, and some of the Writings. According to the

Synoptic Gospels, Jesus quotes or alludes to Deuteronomy some 15 or 16

times, Isaiah some 40 times, and the Psalms some 13 times. These appear

to be his favorite books, though Daniel and Zechariah seem to have been

favorites also. Superficially, then, the canon of Jesus is pretty much what

it was for most religiously observant Jews of his time, 35 includingand


11/14


36In the nonbiblical scrolls of Qumran and the region of the Dead Sea (here the

pesharim are being excluded) the book of Deuteronomy is quoted some 22 times,

Isaiah some 35 times, and the Psalter some 31 times. See J. C. VanderKam,

Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls,Dead Sea Discoveries 5 (1998):

382-402; idem, Question of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea Scrolls, in

McDonald and Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate, 91-109.37One is reminded of the rabbinic dictum: Scripture leads to Targum, Targum

leads to Mishnah, Mishnah leads to Talmud, Talmud leads to performance (Sipre

Deut. 161; on Deut 17:19). Although this dictum postdates Jesus by centuries, it

probably in part mirrors earlier concepts of scribal pedagogy.38See B. D. Chilton, A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible: Jesus Use of the

Interpreted Scripture of His Time, GNS 8 (Wilmington DE: Glazier, 1984); Chilton

and Evans, Jesus and Israels Scriptures, 299-309.

especiallythe producers of the scrolls at Qumran.36 Moreover, there is

evidence that villages and synagogues in the time of Jesus did in fact

possess biblical scrolls (cf. 1 Macc 1:56-57; Josephus, War2.12.2 229 [in

reference to Antiochus IVs efforts to find and destroy Torah scrolls];Life134 [in reference to scrolls in Galilee, during the early stages of the revolt

against Rome]).

Finally, the frequency and poignancy of Jesus employment of Aramaic

tradition in his allusions and interpretations of Scripture are suggestive of

literacy, regular participation in the synagogue (where the Aramaic

paraphrase, or Targum, developed), and acquaintance with rabbinic and

scribal education itself.37 The dictional, thematic, and exegetical coherence

between the teachings of Jesus and the emerging Aramaic tradition has been

well documented and need not be rehearsed here.38

The data that have been surveyed are more easily explained in reference

to a literate Jesus, a Jesus who could read the Hebrew Scriptures, could

paraphrase and interpret them in Aramaic, and could do so in a manner thatindicated his familiarity with current interpretive tendencies in both popular

circles (as in the synagogues) and in professional, even elite circles (as seen

in debates with scribes, ruling priests, and elders). Of course, to conclude

that Jesus was literate is not necessarily to conclude that Jesus had received

formal scribal training. The data do not suggest this. Jesus innovative,

experiential approach to Scripture and to Jewish faith seems to suggest the

contrary.

In view of the data reviewed above and what strikes me as the most

logical inference from itnamely, that Jesus was literate to some

degreewhy does Professor Botha reach a very different conclusion? He


12/14


39R. W. Funk and R. W. Hoover, eds., The Five Gospels: The Search for the

Authentic Words of Jesus (Sonoma CA: Polebridge Press; New York: Macmillan,

1993) 27; J. D. Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (New York:

HarperCollins, 1994) 25-26; R. W. Funk, Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New

Millennium (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996) 158.40W. V. Harris,Ancient Literacy (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press,

1989).41Botha, Was Jesus Literate? 32.42Botha, Was Jesus Literate? 22. Here Botha especially has in mind the

conclusions reached in uncritical appeals to Josephus and rabbinic literature.43Botha, Was Jesus Literate? 23-24. In my view, Bothas position at this

point struggles against the discovery of great quantities of papyri, many of which

were written by untrained hands, that is, by persons who obviously could read, but

just as obviously were not trained scribes. The thousands of nonprofessional papyri,

along with the thousands of ostraca, on which are written receipts, brief lists of

goods, names, and the like, may well be important evidence of literacy among

larger numbers of people in the Mediterranean than Harris and Botha have allowed.44Botha, Was Jesus Literate? 25-26.

is not alone, for other scholars have expressed doubts that Jesus could

read.39 Their doubts may owe in part to William Harris, whose influential

study in literacy in antiquity concludes that probably not more than five

percent of the population was functionally literate.40

In short, it seemsunlikely that a person from rural and peasant background of Jesus of

Nazareth would have learnt to read or write.41 Botha has invoked a cultural

argument, in contrast to the literary and traditional arguments set forth

above. Let us review his argument briefly.

Botha begins with literacy in antiquity. He rightly complains about

scholarly conclusions that do not sufficiently recognize the paucity and

ambiguity of the evidence for literacy in the Mediterranean world of late

antiquity: In general, references to literacy in antiquity reflect fairly

unrealistic understandings of literacy.42 On this point I think he is mostly

correct. Botha also rightly questions some of the inferences made from

ostraca and inscriptions.43 His most forceful argument revolves around a

description of Jesus peasant world.44 In this world the expense ofeducation would have been viewed as an extravagant, unnecessary risk.

Better to spend time in the field or the shop than in study, from which there

would be little economic gain.

Botha offers another, very creative argument, in which he delineates

several forms of literacy and their roles within the peasant culture of


13/14


45Botha, Was Jesus Literate? 27-31.46As is also suggested by Funk,Honest to Jesus, 158: He could be compared

to David and Solomon in the popular culture. . . . His rhetorical skills bordered on

the magicalhe was a word wizard.47Botha, Was Jesus Literate? 31.48So do Crossan and Funk. According to Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary

Galilee, in which Jesus performs a reading.45 The historical Jesus

could not read or write, Botha explains, but he may well have made use of

a scroll in performing what could be described as a magical reading.46

Accordingly, the account in Luke 4:16-30, in which Jesus is said to haveread from the scroll of Isaiah, may reflect an actual episode. Jesus takes the

scroll, unrolls it, paraphrases a passage (though not actually located and

read), rolls it up, hands it back to the attendant, and then proclaims his

message. The scroll plays an important role in Jesus dramatic performance,

but really provides no evidence that Jesus was literate in the sense that he

could read and write. As a Galilean peasant, Botha explains, Jesus was at

best able to recognize a few letters (meaning numbers) and construe a few

names and/or inscriptional signs.47

Bothas proposal of a dramatic performance, perhaps even a magical

reading, is an intriguing suggestion. It is consistent with Jesus as healer

and exorcist. It is consistent with his experiential use of Scripture and could

also explain his dynamic paraphrasing of Scripture.Nevertheless, I find an illiterate Jesus harder to explain, in the light of

the Gospel tradition. Jesus was regarded as a teacherby friend and foe

alike. He argued points of Scripture with scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and

ruling priests. He specifically challenged their readings of Scripture. He

taught discipleslearnerswho in turn preserved his teaching. The

movement that Jesus founded produced a legacy of literature, including four

Gospels, a narrative of the early Church (i.e., the book of Acts), and a

number of letters. The sudden emergence of a prolific literary tradition from

an illiterate founder is not impossible of course, but it is less difficult to

explain if Jesus were in fact literate.

I also find aspects of Bothas cultural argument unpersuasive. The con-

clusions reached by Harris, on which evidently Crossan and others rely,

may be accurate with regard to the Mediterranean world in general, but do

they apply to the Jewish people? Moreover, Botha makes assumptions about

the typical Galileanspecifically that he is illiterateand assumes that

Jesus was no more than a typical Galilean peasant.48 How does he know


14/14


Biography, 25, it must be presumed that Jesus also was illiterate; and according

to Funk,Honest to Jesus, 158, He was also probably technically illiteratehe may

not have been able to read and write.49If I am correct here, then in a qualified sense we may say that the literacy of

Jesus itself made an important contribution to the formation of the Christian biblical

canon.

this? On the contrary, the status and following that Jesus achieved suggest

that Jesus was not a typical Galilean. Botha is correct in challenging the

specific application of generalities about literacy, but the same goes in

applying generalities about Galileans to the specific person Jesus. He wasregarded as unusual by many of his contemporaries, by both friend and foe.

In the end it is a question of probability, not proof. I agree with Foster,

with his inferences from the sources. The decisive factors in the debate are

not found in generalities touching the world of Jesus, but in specific and

distinctive features found in Jesus himself.

I urge Botha and other like-minded scholars to take into account these

specific featuresa rabbi who instructs disciples, engages in theological

and scriptural debate with religious authorities, frequents synagogues,

appears to be familiar with certain parts of the Jewish scriptures, founded

a movement that produced literature, not least a body of writings that comes

to be called the New Testament.49 In my judgment probability favors the

conclusion that Jesus was literate, not of course in the professional orscribal sense, but in a functional sense. Jesus was no typical Galilean Jew,

and, further, the Jews may not have been typical Mediterranean people,

especially when it came to literacy.

jewish scripture and the literacy of jesus

Documents